Se analyses were primarily exploratory in nature to supplement our a priori ROI analyses, we used this somewhat liberal threshold to decrease the likelihood of type-2 error (Lieberman and Cunningham, 2009). Finally, we conducted path analyses to test whether neural activity in the a priori ROIs described above mediated any observed relations between social status and inflammatory responses to the social stressor. Statistical testing of mediation was performed using the SPSS macro, PROCESS (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). Specifically, we conducted nonparametric bootstrapping (10 000 iterations) with 90 confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect mediation effect (a ?b effect) generated by the bias-corrected VER-52296 supplier method.ResultsSocial status and affective responses to social stressFirst, we examined if subjective social status was related to participants’ self-reported affective responses to the social stressor. There was no relationship between status and self-reported feelings in response to the negative words (r ?0.05, P ?0.79); there was a marginally significant, positive relationship between status and responses to positive words (r ?0.33, P ?0.07), and there was a significant, positive correlation between status and self-reported feelings in response to the neutral words (r ?0.46, P ?0.009). These data suggest that individuals reporting higher social status more negative in response to the neutral and positive feedback, compared to those reporting lower standing. We also examined the relation between social status and overall changes in affect, perceptions of social evaluation, and perceptions of social rejection from pre- to post-stress. There was a significant, negative relationship between social status and overall change in self-reported negative feelings (r ??.43, P ?0.02), suggesting that individuals reporting higher status felt worse following the stressor. There was no relationship between social status and perceptions of evaluation (r ??.07, P ?0.71) or rejection (r ?0.10, P ?0.59).Social status and social stressor-evoked inflammatory responsesNext, we examined if subjective social status was associated with social-stressor evoked changes in the inflammatory markers IL-6 and TNF-a. Consistent with hypotheses and previous research (Brydon et al., 2004; Derry et al., 2013), we found a significant, negative correlation between social status and stressor-evoked IL-6 responses, r ??.38, P < 0.05 (Figure 1). Specifically, participants who ranked themselves lower in social status showed greater increases in IL-6 in response to the stressor. There was no relationship between status and stressorevoked TNF-a responses (P > 0.80); as such, subsequent analyses focus exclusively on IL-6. As indicated in a prior report on this dataset (Muscatell et al., 2015), there was also no correlation between any of the affective responses to the task (i.e. responses to the words, overall affect, social evaluation or social rejection) and inflammatory responses (all P > 0.77)Social status and neural responses to social stressNext, we explored if subjective social status was related to neural activity in the amygdala and/or the DMPFC in response toK. A. Muscatell et al.|Fig. 3. Mediational model linking subjective social status and inflammatory reFig. 1. Lower subjective social status is associated with greater IL-6 responses to the social stressor. sponses via activation in the DMPFC. Note: a, b, c and c0 refer to the unstandardized BLU-554MedChemExpress BLU-554 coefficients for each pat.Se analyses were primarily exploratory in nature to supplement our a priori ROI analyses, we used this somewhat liberal threshold to decrease the likelihood of type-2 error (Lieberman and Cunningham, 2009). Finally, we conducted path analyses to test whether neural activity in the a priori ROIs described above mediated any observed relations between social status and inflammatory responses to the social stressor. Statistical testing of mediation was performed using the SPSS macro, PROCESS (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). Specifically, we conducted nonparametric bootstrapping (10 000 iterations) with 90 confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect mediation effect (a ?b effect) generated by the bias-corrected method.ResultsSocial status and affective responses to social stressFirst, we examined if subjective social status was related to participants’ self-reported affective responses to the social stressor. There was no relationship between status and self-reported feelings in response to the negative words (r ?0.05, P ?0.79); there was a marginally significant, positive relationship between status and responses to positive words (r ?0.33, P ?0.07), and there was a significant, positive correlation between status and self-reported feelings in response to the neutral words (r ?0.46, P ?0.009). These data suggest that individuals reporting higher social status more negative in response to the neutral and positive feedback, compared to those reporting lower standing. We also examined the relation between social status and overall changes in affect, perceptions of social evaluation, and perceptions of social rejection from pre- to post-stress. There was a significant, negative relationship between social status and overall change in self-reported negative feelings (r ??.43, P ?0.02), suggesting that individuals reporting higher status felt worse following the stressor. There was no relationship between social status and perceptions of evaluation (r ??.07, P ?0.71) or rejection (r ?0.10, P ?0.59).Social status and social stressor-evoked inflammatory responsesNext, we examined if subjective social status was associated with social-stressor evoked changes in the inflammatory markers IL-6 and TNF-a. Consistent with hypotheses and previous research (Brydon et al., 2004; Derry et al., 2013), we found a significant, negative correlation between social status and stressor-evoked IL-6 responses, r ??.38, P < 0.05 (Figure 1). Specifically, participants who ranked themselves lower in social status showed greater increases in IL-6 in response to the stressor. There was no relationship between status and stressorevoked TNF-a responses (P > 0.80); as such, subsequent analyses focus exclusively on IL-6. As indicated in a prior report on this dataset (Muscatell et al., 2015), there was also no correlation between any of the affective responses to the task (i.e. responses to the words, overall affect, social evaluation or social rejection) and inflammatory responses (all P > 0.77)Social status and neural responses to social stressNext, we explored if subjective social status was related to neural activity in the amygdala and/or the DMPFC in response toK. A. Muscatell et al.|Fig. 3. Mediational model linking subjective social status and inflammatory reFig. 1. Lower subjective social status is associated with greater IL-6 responses to the social stressor. sponses via activation in the DMPFC. Note: a, b, c and c0 refer to the unstandardized coefficients for each pat.
